Ubisoft Connect Outage Map

Community Discussion

Tips? Frustrations? Share them here. Useful comments include a description of the problem, city and postal code.

Beware of "support numbers" or "recovery" accounts that might be posted below. Make sure to report and downvote those comments. Avoid posting your personal information.

Ubisoft Connect Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  Unsupervised Mandolorian (@Ashrubel) reported 49 seconds ago

  @RetnaburnX @Voltzzzzzzz36 @PaladinAshe How is Steam a Monopoly? Is the product/service they offer materially the same as the product/service being offered by Ubisoft? Are they preventing Ubisoft from selling games? Are they preventing Ubisoft from offering a similar Service? How many AAA Game Developers has Steam bankrupted by killing their ability to compete?

• 
  alex🚦MANDO ERA!!!!! (@CorellianAlex) reported 1 minute ago

  @90sbabyvpn my problem with some ubisoft open world games.

• 
  B o g o s B i n T e D (@BogosBinted1987) reported 1 minute ago

  @jmdagdelen 1. It treats users who chose steam unfairly due to a premium "steam tax" 2. This has literally been a non issue since 2019 when Ubisoft left Steam store 3. This only benefits the publisher and Ubisoft hasn't done anything in 2 decades to garner any trust in a store by them.

• 
  Hawx (@ItsHawx) reported 1 minute ago

  Stop Killing Games is in trouble. Ubisoft & VGE are holding a private meeting with members of the EU Commission 2 weeks before we should get an answer about SKG. Seeing as how the Commission keeps parroting VGE misinfo this could be REALLY bad for the outcome.

• 
  SUCHAR SHARMA (@SucharSharma) reported 3 minutes ago

  @gerulis20 There are multiple options, you have epic, ea, ubisoft, gog and you can make your own. You are not hardware locked like consoles or phones. You have infinite options, they may not be good options but that is not steam's problem.

• 
  Razgriz (@razgriiz) reported 4 minutes ago

  @Pirat_Nation The announcement that 007 First Light from IO Interactive has moved 2.2 million copies and generated around 150 million dollars in revenue after that 1.5 million unit first day surge is being sold as straightforward proof of a major commercial and critical win, yet when you actually sit inside the full set of facts including the reported development cost exceeding 200 million dollars across seven years of work the way these particular numbers are chosen and amplified and the exact language wrapped around them it becomes clear this is operating on the same gaslighting logic track that Assassins Creed Shadows followed where early positive signals were deployed to create an impression of overwhelming success broad embrace and vindication for the creative direction even as the deeper financial mechanics and eventual corporate behavior revealed a more calculated effort to control the narrative and buy breathing room rather than deliver an unfiltered account of how the release was truly landing. Start with the concrete sales picture itself because that is where the spin begins its work. IO Interactive announced 1.5 million copies sold inside the first twenty four hours which is genuinely the strongest opening they have ever recorded and beats the launch pace of any Hitman title they have shipped which matters because this is their first major original project outside that series in a long time and the James Bond license carries real name recognition that can drive day one purchases even from people who are only casually interested in the films. Steam data from analysts put roughly five hundred thousand of those units on PC alone generating something like twenty five million dollars there before platform cuts and the overall estimate now sits at 2.2 million total copies with 150 million dollars in revenue mostly concentrated on PlayStation 5 at around fifty five percent of the total. Those figures are real and they arrived quickly which is why the company and outlets covering the story are able to call it the fastest selling game in IO Interactive history and one of the stronger openings of 2026. At the same time the development budget has been reported at over two hundred million dollars which immediately changes the math because that number does not include the substantial additional spend on marketing a Bond title or any ongoing live support costs or licensing arrangements with the rights holders and when you factor in typical platform revenue shares that can run thirty percent or higher the 150 million dollars in top line revenue shrinks considerably before anyone even talks about actual profit or recouping the full investment. For a project this expensive many single player AAA releases need to reach lifetime sales well into the four or five million range or higher before they cross into clearly profitable territory especially when the goal is not just breaking even but funding sequels or studio growth and 2.2 million in the first week while respectable is still front loaded in the way almost every story driven game is with the biggest spike happening immediately and then tapering as players finish the campaign which in this case appears to be in the twelve to sixteen hour range based on how long to beat style tracking. The sharp drops in Steam concurrent players that some observers have pointed to as a crash are in reality the normal pattern for a completed single player experience rather than evidence of live service collapse and the majority of sales appear to be console driven where concurrent tracking is less visible anyway so the raw launch data does contain legitimate positives for a studio of IO Interactive size stepping out with a new IP flavored Bond origin story. The gaslighting enters through the specific way these numbers are framed and the loaded phrases attached to them because the press materials and coverage do not simply report the sales they actively construct a story of unqualified triumph and consensus. Phrases like overwhelming global enthusiasm broad appeal and successful execution of IO Interactive vision turn a solid opening into proof that any skepticism was misplaced and that the direction taken with a younger reimagined Bond has already been embraced at scale. The strong critic scores in the high eighties on Metacritic and around ninety on OpenCritic are repeatedly paired with the sales claims to create the impression that both professionals and the wider audience are aligned in celebration and that the game stands as one of the most successful releases of the year without qualifiers around what success actually requires for a two hundred million dollar title or how much of the revenue will ultimately remain after costs. This framing does not lie about the first day or first week movement but it selectively emphasizes the metrics that support the victory narrative while downplaying the budget context the front loaded nature of the sales and the difference between gross revenue and net profitability which is the same selective emphasis that appeared with Assassins Creed Shadows when Ubisoft leaned on player count milestones rather than direct sales figures and described performance as overperforming expectations even while independent tracking suggested more modest results in the low millions range and the company continued to face broader financial pressure and restructuring moves. In both cases the early positive signals are deployed not just to celebrate what happened but to lock in a public perception that makes later adjustments or quieter admissions of shortfall feel surprising or external rather than the predictable outcome of high cost ambitious projects in a market where many releases need sustained long tail performance to truly succeed. What makes this pattern function as gaslighting is the step by step way it shapes reality for the audience over time beginning with the flood of early positive data that establishes the game as a hit in the collective conversation then moving to the elevation of critic validation as evidence that the vision was correct and any pushback on tone casting or design choices is therefore coming from the wrong side of history followed by the use of that locked in success story to support real business moves such as partnership discussions or internal morale and finally the delayed moment when actual lifetime sales retention curves or studio headcount decisions reveal that the opening numbers while real did not automatically translate into the scale of victory the language had implied. During the first phases anyone raising the budget math or noting that 2.2 million units on a project this expensive is a promising start rather than automatic proof of generational dominance gets positioned as overly negative or out of step with the data and the critic scores and by the time corporate actions like targeted restructuring or scaled back plans appear the earlier triumphant framing has already done its work of making those outcomes seem like unforeseen shifts rather than developments that were always possible given the cost structure and market realities. Assassins Creed Shadows followed nearly identical steps with pre launch financial distress and controversy around its protagonist casting being met with strong defensive positioning that the game would deliver and post launch claims of strong player engagement being used to suggest the direction had been validated even as the overall company picture continued to involve cuts and the independent sales estimates remained more modest than the savior level performance some had hoped for. The effect in both cases is to make the audience doubt their own reading of the situation in the moment and then later feel the rug pulled when the business consequences surface without the earlier narrative ever being directly corrected. The incentives driving this approach are straightforward once you look at them without the marketing gloss because a studio and its partners have every reason to present the strongest possible version of early results in order to maintain momentum for future projects protect the perceived value of a major license like Bond and keep talent and external relationships intact during the uncertain period right after launch when true profitability is still unknown. IO Interactive coming off years of Hitman success has built a reputation for quality stealth action and this Bond title represents a significant expansion of scope and ambition so the pressure to demonstrate that the move has paid off quickly is real especially with Amazon and MGM involved in the wider ecosystem. At the same time the actual game appears to have landed well with both critics and players based on the Metacritic user scores sitting around eight point seven with strong positive percentages which suggests the quality concerns that sometimes accompany these high budget releases are not the primary issue here unlike some more contested titles where review gaps or player pushback were more pronounced. The spin is less about covering up a bad game and more about accelerating the conclusion that the commercial and creative bets have already been fully vindicated when the data so far supports a promising opening that still requires time and additional performance to prove it can carry the full weight of its production costs. This is why the pattern repeats across different studios and different levels of actual quality because the short term value of controlling the narrative buying time and shaping expectations often outweighs the longer term cost of eroded trust once gamers learn to treat first week victory laps as standard operating procedure rather than definitive proof. What ends up happening over repeated cycles is that the audience becomes increasingly attuned to watching what studios do after the initial wave rather than what they say during it because the gaslighting logic ultimately relies on the gap between the immediate celebratory framing and the slower arrival of full financial and operational reality. With 007 First Light the strong reviews and solid launch numbers give it a better foundation than some previous examples but the same structural pressures around high budgets front loaded sales and the need to justify ambitious scope remain in place so the question becomes whether the game sustains momentum through word of mouth sales periods and any post launch content or whether the trajectory follows the more common path of a respectable opening that does not automatically scale to the level the early language suggested. The comparison to Assassins Creed Shadows holds because both cases show the same mechanism at work where positive early signals are used to establish a story of success and broad acceptance that then makes any subsequent adjustments appear as surprises rather than outcomes that were always within the range of possibility given the costs involved and the selective way the data was presented from the start. Cooking through the entire sequence from the first day announcement through the revenue estimates the budget context the critical reception the normal single player player count behavior and the business incentives reveals a consistent pattern of narrative management that prioritizes short term perception control over complete transparency and that pattern is what makes the whole thing feel like gaslighting even when parts of the underlying performance are genuinely positive.

• 
  lol (@jakejpfeif) reported 6 minutes ago

  @LinaLavendula Ubisoft was selling a different product on their store compared to the Steam store, that's the issue, not the price.

• 
  Stormking (@StormkingX2) reported 10 minutes ago

  @AraKamelia You know thats all ubisoft lies right? Last I checked samus never had issue or Bayonetta. Heck e33 is a female main character and no one ******* at it

• 
  IvanTheProfet (@IvanTheProfet) reported 17 minutes ago

  @Ubisoft @Rainbow6Game And I think we will all want compensation for ******** up you guys are. Shut the servers down for a day, work on it non stop, fix everything you need to fix and make people happy. Not hard, stop pretending your job is hard or complicated.

• 
  Arin Evergale #Tenoí (@ArinEvergale) reported 19 minutes ago

  @OppositeMario @Marsormr_ Steam doesn't even do this, Valves issue with Ubisoft was them selling packages that weren't available on steam, not just the price Look ad Cyberpunk the game is considerably cheaper on gog than steam and valve hasn't removed that

• 
  Alec 🥶🔥 (@Swytchers) reported 21 minutes ago

  @ilBakii @Ubisoft Yeah , xdefiants biggest issue was net code and mark rubin asked to move it to a newer engine so that wouldn’t be an issue they told him no and they had to basically bandaid the game and that’s why it took so long to come out

• 
  synkura (@synkura) reported 24 minutes ago

  granted this put an pricing on skins like what markets do, depending on how rare and the demand of the skin people are wanting to buy/sell this skin in particular reached around 15/16k R6 credits which is £80 (€92.62/$107.74) Ubisoft or anyone who knows markets this would happen. This move for them though made sense as a business as if these skins and most skins to everyone's knowledge was not going to be obtainable any other way or at any other time in the future because that was not stated and the only skins at the time that got relaunches was ones like doctors curse, M.U.T.E Protocol and rainbow is magic. This gave ubisoft money from consumers to buy skins that they had released prior or used as incentives like the ones from the Kickstarter board game where some of the more expensive items came from. Then at year 10 they brought out the Celebration packs containing the same FOMO content that was released from over the past 10 years of the game this added an RNG element to getting *select* skins from the tenure of the game getting them way cheaper from the market which could be bought with renown or earned in that seasons battle pass. They then closed the market recently I spent time away from the game so I don't know when it was which was a good thing as it was a little predatory practice like I stated before FOMO if you don't get it for this price then you will never get it. but at that point in my opinion to atleast show appreciation to the people who played and bought those skins using fomo as the reason to buy them by not just thinking eh **** it its been 10 years lets now start recycling skins we made a decade ago screwing people who thought at the time through the past 10 years was purchasing not just a skin but a part of the history of the game. The two skins they re released if they was at all linked to when Dokabi came out I wouldn't even even care because it would of had a link to the character, The skins from White Noise was really good and deserved to have a little more light shined on them but these skins was when HIBANA and Echo came out. This to me just seems like a middle finger and a little distasteful as a long term fan of the game, am I upset that new people will get access to the skins? No I am not. My main problem is the FOMO marketing of these assets to urge people to buy them here n now just to go HA SIKE and launch it again a few years later.

• 
  Casual (@CasulOfCatarina) reported 25 minutes ago

  @SteamInvHelper I would not abandon it instantly, but if epic games gave a good service (they don't) I would at least take the free games or buy games there if they're cheaper than Steam, the problem is that EGS services is bad, Xbox on PC is bad, Uplay and EAplay are bad, only good store is GoG

• 
  HYRKANIAN 🐎LORD 🗡 ISLE OF THE DOOMED OUT NOW (@stranglercore) reported 25 minutes ago

  okay I have been trying for two days to create an ubisoft account and every time I get a mysterious error before getting a timed lockout of the sign up page Is Assassin's Creed fake? Are these just scam games now?

• 
  LimitedTimeGamer (@LimitTimeGamer) reported 25 minutes ago

  @statesminds @Ubisoft @RaymanGame It's because they force their drm rewards service into every ubi title.